NASA's Rubber Ruler: An Update

[manbearpig]

There’s plenty of individual incentive, for many different reasons. That’s false.

Tons of people are making a conscious decision based on lessening their carbon footprint

And this is effecting global warming how?

How do you measure your carbon footprint by the way?

Are you sure your energy use is reduced?

I recycle stuff too and try not to waste sh!t

But I also don’t delude myself that I’m not kind of shitting on the earth

That’s just a cost of modern life

There is an alternative obviously

But basically nobody really wants to go there and its not cool to pretend that people are bad for not wanting that

The cost of modern life has drastic effects, no one is claiming we will go to having a zero waste/zero footprint society or demanding that happens. Almost everyone has accepted that reality. Lessening that footprint is what we are talking about, not some delusional idea that we will remove it. There's a threshold and many experts believe we are close to that point, or even past it.

Compromise seems to be a word missing in the vocabulary of a lot of discussions here. It's not black and white, it never is.

All the questions you asked are linked by scientific fact that there are many factors created by humans that effect climate. Measuring your carbon footprint isn't an exact science most can do at home, but people can lessen that by conscious lifestyle decisions and being less wasteful. My energy consumption is pretty bad admittedly, but I do my best through whatever means I can find. Realistically I can't (no one can) just drop everything that I am doing that creates waste as I would be homeless and naked.

Even if climate change were to be shown to be a fallacy we all benefit from moving away from our current ways of living and toward more renewables, lessening our footprint and waste. So its a win/win situation in reality.

 

[Billy Ocean]

Ok fair enough

Obviously it’s a complex issue

Which tends to be reduced to “good guys” and “bad guys”

But the “bad guys” actually kind of keep your lights on

And almost everyone keeps the lights on

Even the ones who act like it’s a problem

So maybe it’s not really the biggest problem we have

Just one among many

But there is more than one way to keep the lights on.

I happen to support those that use a renewable energy source vs the tried and true coal/oil burners.

Now that those dudes have gotten their tax breaks, isn’t it high time to refocus on the emerging technologies? I think so.

No more clean water act waivers for big business.
They’ve got theirs now, don’t need it any longer. That’s my numero uno

There’s actually not a cost free way of keeping the lights on

That’s the point

The idea that we can just use renewables and keep up the same level of energy consumption is false

Almost nobody would be ok with intermittent power outages which would result from wide scale reliance on renewables

It’s a nice idea as a supplement and to diversify, but it’s not a realistic substitute for fossil fuels

This also should not really be a political issue

It’s just scientific/ economic reality

 

[GDaddy]

Reliable vs unreliable

 

[manbearpig]

Ok fair enough

Obviously it’s a complex issue

Which tends to be reduced to “good guys” and “bad guys”

But the “bad guys” actually kind of keep your lights on

And almost everyone keeps the lights on

Even the ones who act like it’s a problem

So maybe it’s not really the biggest problem we have

Just one among many

But there is more than one way to keep the lights on.

I happen to support those that use a renewable energy source vs the tried and true coal/oil burners.

Now that those dudes have gotten their tax breaks, isn’t it high time to refocus on the emerging technologies? I think so.

No more clean water act waivers for big business.
They’ve got theirs now, don’t need it any longer. That’s my numero uno

There’s actually not a cost free way of keeping the lights on

That’s the point

The idea that we can just use renewables and keep up the same level of energy consumption is false

Almost nobody would be ok with intermittent power outages which would result from wide scale reliance on renewables

It’s a nice idea as a supplement and to diversify, but it’s not a realistic substitute for fossil fuels

This also should not really be a political issue

It’s just scientific/ economic reality

Nobody said it has to be free. Unless your creating the energy yourself with your own equipment it should be expected you have to pay for the energy.

And what proof do you have that there will be intermittent power outages? Going to 100% renewables isn’t something thats going to happen with the snap of your fingers. There will be overlap with fossil fuels, as there should be, which also should remain as part of the grid as a backup if we were to switch to renewables; at least until any kinks are removed.

All this removes our reliance on oil, as well as big oil corporations which are among the biggest influences and corrupters in government. Want to drain the swamp? This is actually doing that. Get big oil off the government teet.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

We all know all the fish will be gone one day

So f it

No, we don't know that, and sustainable fishing practices shouldn't be that hard, nor should taking care of inland waterways so the fish there is safe to eat.

From your post I gather you live somewhere in the Northeast, where the Striped Bass fishing has undergone a recovery. Highly populated and polluted zone when I was there in the 80s.

Maybe cool it a little with the economies of scale factory ship migration-raping, and dumping sh!t into streams so some prick can afford to have a few more mines collapse?

Maybe only fertilize what plant life on the farms and grazing grounds in interior Florida can actually absorb, and stop treating the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee like agribusiness's gutters?

 

[test_article]

.
Question. How can a bonafide scientist write down a temperature number on a sheet of paper, and then report years later that he wrote down a different number?

NASA's Rubber Ruler: An Update

January 1, 2018
The NASA/GISS temperature record is not actually a record of recorded temperatures.  It is simply the most recent version of NASA's adjustments to older adjustments.  It is not thermometer readings.  It is models all the way down.

In 2012, I wrote an American Thinker article on the status of global warming at the time.  I used the latest available NASA/GISS data to do that analysis, which was the version NASA had on its website on April 30, 2012 (Land-Ocean Temperature Index [LOTI]).

At that time, the data from 1880 through 2011 showed a warming trend of 0.59 degrees Celsius per century.

What is that warming trend using the latest data from NASA's website (December 30, 2017), using those same exact years (1880-2011)?  The answer is 0.66 degrees Celcius.
…...
I know that NASA adjusted the temperature record in a way that accelerated the warming trend.  What I don't know for sure is how much of the warming trend is due solely to such adjustments.  One peer-reviewed study says "nearly all" of the warming is fabricated.

I would sure like to look at the science of global warming.  But without physical observations one can trust, how does one do that?  It is all one big "trust us."  But that is not science.  The "temperature record" is not a record of thermometer readings.  It is a summary of what government-funded people with science degrees think is OK for us to see.

You're a victim of fake news. Obviously the writer downloaded some information. If he was knowledgeable on the topic he also would've downloaded the detailed data that justifies and sources any changes. It's all out there for anyone to see. Why didn't he even mention it?

I think the writer is advertising his lack of knowledge, or worse, he's being deliberately misleading.